Vaccine

Should Everyone Get Vaccinated? — Yeadon, Wittkowski & Bridle Comment. Twitter Censors Kulldorff.

Posted on Mar 30, 2021August 13, 2022

The above video, ‘Twitter censoring Harvard Medical school Professor Martin Kulldorf’ is trending today. I took a look to see what had been censored and it was the following simple Q & A exchange.

Since the start of the pandemic big tech has been aggressively censoring medical information, with a complete bias for Non-Pharmacological Interventions (masks, social distancing, lockdowns) also dubbed Non-Scientific Interventions. Draconian interventions exported from China last year that are not evidence-based and from which big tech derives benefit. Big tech censorship of therapeutics is costing lives.

As we’ve come to expect when big tech censors, it does not cite anyone. Nor does it offer any form of transparency into the decision making process. For anyone who has looked into it, it’s an American political censorship by proxy game. A grave danger not just to America, but to the world.

The other day Martin threw down the gauntlet.

It caught my attention in particular because I’ve been absolutely perplexed by mainstream media endlessly advocating to vaccinate everybody. It made absolutely no sense.

I even caught Fauci recently on television talking about a road map to vaccinate babies! I was literally stunned.

Fauci had claimed that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of influenza is ~0.1%. And the other day also, John P. A. Ioannidis, C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics; co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), published peer-reviewed ‘Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations, that stated “… the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries, and locations”. In other words it’s flu-like risk for the great majority of people.

Or put it another way, if you are worrying about it, stop, and if you must worry about something that could threaten your life, worry about forgetting to look bothways before crossing the street.

It’s even more odd because the age graduated risk is extreme, with the very elderly being at several thousand times more risk than young children. It just didn’t make sense to be introducing medical risk to children, let alone babies. Their risk of COVID-19 is negligible, less than that of influenza.

And why would healthy, non-elderly adults want experimental treatments for a flu-level risk? And if they were not already immune (e.g. existing cross-immunity), why would they not want to acquire “full spectrum” natural immunity instead? Most certainly for the young.

Plus, as with the flu vaccine, it’s not ‘sterilizing’. Immunity is not long lasting, mandating a yearly jab. The UK has already planned such a booster jab for those already vaccinated!

It doesn’t protect against infection. It doesn’t protect against transmission (although it’s likely to dampen it). It’s primarily intended to blunt disease progression. But healthy non-elderly adults (let alone children) rarely progress to a disease state from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I was so perplexed that I asked around for a week, “why vaccinate everybody”? No one provided a credible response to substantiate vaccinating everyone as per the transnationally orchestrated mainstream media campaign.

I received a few, credible sounding responses that not everyone should be vaccinated from Dr Knut Wittkowski (Epidemiologist), Dr Byram Bridle (Viral Immunologist), and Dr Mike Yeadon (Former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer) replied. You can read their professional biographies.

The first to reply was Dr Knut Wittkowski. Hyperlinks are mine:

The risks vaccines confer depend on the type of vaccine
Most vaccinations cause some discomfort from local reactions.
There is always a risk of severe immune reaction (anaphylactic shock), which can be handled with epinephrine if the vaccine remains under observation for 15-30 minutes.
Some cases of Bell’s palsy have been reported with COVID vaccines.
An attenuated virus vaccine can mutate back and cause the disease it is supposed to prevent.
An adenovirus (or other vector) vaccine carries the risk that infection with the adenovirus might cause in immune-compromised people.
An mRNA vaccine may carry some risk from the artificial hull (eg, if it is made of long PGA, which can be immunogenic).
If the vaccine creates neutralizing Abs and they don’t always neutralize the virus, there may be a risk of Ab-dependent enhancement when the Ab-virus complex replicates in the macrophages that are supposed to eliminated it (I’m not entirely sure if this is all and/or correct).
Of course, only Ab-neg. people should be vaccinated. With respiratory virus diseases such as COVIDs, less than 50% of them need to be vaccinated to reach HI.
While these AEs are rare, they exist and if the expected AEs are more severe than the expected illness from disease vaccination should be avoided.
Hence the following people should not be vaccinated:
Those who are Ab-positive.
Children, because their expected illness would be very mild.
Some older or vulnerable people, because they may experience more severe AEs. (An older person in my family couldn’t speak for a whole day after the 2nd vaccination and needed 36 h of sleep to recover.)

Dr Byram Bridle replied with:

Here’s my quick ‘two cents-worth’… One of the arguments for vaccinating everyone is to protect each individual from the potential of acquiring severe disease and possibly dying. This has been largely supported by selective emphasis of data that has scared many people. This includes things like failing to define the nature of ‘cases’ (i.e. asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, lethal); this would paint a different picture. An accurate presentation of the full spectrum of data set alongside the context of something like influenza viruses that everyone has a lot of experience with would help bring balance to discussions. A second argument for vaccinating those who are not at high risk is that it will prevent the least vulnerable from passing the virus to the most vulnerable. I.e. to use the least vulnerable as shields. However, for that to work properly, the vaccines would have to confer sterilizing immunity, for which there is no evidence that they can achieve this (most of the data shows that they are excellent at blunting the severity of disease). As a global community, I think we have ‘missed the boat’ on this one. Acquisition of herd immunity among low-risk people (the majority) while focusing temporary protective measures on the most vulnerable likely could have got us out of the ongoing cycle of lockdowns quite some time ago, and with fewer overall deaths.

and quickly followed up to my response to that with:

That’s the crazy part of this. If the vaccines don’t confer sterilizing immunity (and there is no evidence they do; in fact, quite the opposite), then the argument of risk of transmission to the vulnerable remains. In Canada, vaccinated individuals have to remain under lockdown, wear masks and maintain 2 meters of distancing just they had to prior to vaccination.

Dr Mike Yeadon gave the final response and shared his views in a broader context:

I second everything in Knut’s summary & of course the implication NOT to continue with the ill-advised plan to vaccinate everyone.
On ADE, I don’t think it’s understood exactly how it occurs, only that it has in the past and more than once.
I will now outline a strong reason not to vaccinate everyone, even supposing there was a perfect vaccine that harmed no one.
For the first time in human history, the “vaccinate the world plan” will, as a by-product, give rise to a unified database of every person on the planet.
For each person, at minimum, there will be a common standard digital ID associated with their vaccination status.
That database will be used to grant certain privileges such as the right to cross an international border.
Those not on the system will be denied access.
Initially, the idea is made to sound reasonable: “it’s not us, we aren’t setting this requirement, it’s clearly up to other, sovereign nations to set conditions for entry to their country, and we must accommodate this, so that our citizens can once again travel”.
Once on this common ID system, permissions & privileges will steadily be made more stringent until you will legally be unable to leave your dwelling.
Israel is leading by example. Absent a strong & widely heard and understood reason, the U.K. will be next.
Furthermore, you’ll turn up when ordered to do so for your next “top up vaccine”.

Therefore I concluded that at least for now:

Twitter censorship is grossly wrong, not just the practice of censoring lawful content but their censorship is factually incorrect.
Mainstream media is wrong, then again, owing to the vast sums spent by governments on advertising vaccines and paying top dollar, it’s unlikely that mainstream media would be incentivized to do anything else.

I still very much welcome input, either way. If you have credible reason/s to vaccinate everyone, please do reach out.

More Resources: